A pharmacist has received a warning from the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) for assaulting his wife.
 

Jamie Ellison, registration number 2064220, received a police caution in September 2013 after he admitted to pushing his wife during a dispute, the GPhC heard at a fitness-to-practise hearing on March 9. He had appeared to “blame his wife’s personality” for the incident at the time, although Mrs Ellison had chosen not to press charges, the GPhC heard.
 

The regulator accepted Mr Ellison had reported the police caution to the GPhC within the required amount of time, and was “remorseful” for his actions. It was “significant” that Mr Ellison had apologised to his wife, and appeared to understand it was never acceptable to act in a violent way, it said.
 

Police were called to Mr Ellison’s home in the early hours of the morning following a telephone call from his wife, the regulator heard. Mr Ellison was arrested and - after being interviewed - he was cautioned for the offence of “assault by beating”, the GPhC heard.
 

However, Mrs Ellison did not want the police to prosecute her husband, the regulator heard. Mr Ellison returned to the family home after the incident and remained living there until he separated from his wife two months later, it heard.
 

The regulator noted that Mr Ellison had sought counselling after the incident and his counsellors had decided that further sessions were not required. It recognised that Mr Ellison had been drunk when he pushed his wife, but said it had found no indication of a more general habit of alcohol abuse.
 

There was “no reason to doubt” Mr Ellison was a competent pharmacist, and his employer had described him as “hard working and professional”, the GPhC said. It described the event as a “one-off incident that arose in very specific circumstances”, and concluded that it was unlikely Mr Ellison would act in the same way again.
 

The regulator stressed that domestic violence was a “very serious offence and should be recognised as intolerable behaviour”, but decided that suspending Mr Ellison was “not necessary and would be disproportionate” to his actions. It decided to issue Mr Ellison with a warning that would remain on his record for two years. 

Read the full ruling here.
 

What do you make of the ruling?

We want to hear your views, but please express them in the spirit of a constructive, professional debate. For more information about what this means, please click here to see our community principles and information